The listing has also raised questions about the regulatory history behind the products. Earlier CrossBar records referenced devices with a 1.3 mL capacity and a pending Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) associated with Romo LLC. Newer CrossBar 20K records identify other companies as the applicants for the products listed in several states.

However, publicly available information has not established whether the newer products are covered by an earlier application or whether an application or related business assets were transferred. The distinction matters because a state directory listing and FDA marketing authorization are not the same thing.

Pennsylvania’s Vape Directory Includes 163 Product Records

Pennsylvania began enforcing sales restrictions under its new ENDS directory framework on October 19, 2026. According to 2Firsts’ review of the directory published on October 18, the list contained 163 product records associated with seven manufacturers.

The records covered products connected to major industry names, including Vuse, NJOY, JUUL and Logic. British American Tobacco, Altria, Japan Tobacco and JUUL accounted for 112 entries, or approximately 68.7% of the total.

The directory included 68 cartridge products, 40 bottled e-liquids, 24 kits, 16 devices and 15 disposable e-cigarettes.

Four of the disposable entries were CrossBar 20K variants. Their specifications differed from those of many other products in the directory, particularly older closed-system devices with relatively small liquid capacities.

The four listed variants were:

• Butterscotch Tobacco
• Raspberry Wafer Tobacco
• Blue Razz Ice Menthol
• Miami Mint Menthol

Product packaging information cited in the report identifies a 13 mL liquid capacity, a nicotine concentration of 50 mg/mL and a claimed maximum of 20,000 puffs for these variants.

These are reported product specifications, not independent evidence of actual usage or nicotine delivery. Puff counts can vary with device design and individual use.

For more details about the new restrictions and the brands missing from the state’s list, read our report on the Pennsylvania vape directory and the products facing sales restrictions.

How CrossBar 20K Differs From Other Listed Products

The size of the liquid reservoir is one of the clearest differences between CrossBar 20K and several established closed-system products in Pennsylvania’s directory.

The CrossBar 20K has a reported capacity of 13 mL. By comparison, the records cited by 2Firsts list 0.9 mL for NJOY DAILY, 1.8 mL per Vuse Alto pod and 0.7 mL per JUUL pod.

That means the CrossBar 20K reservoir is approximately 14.4 times the size of the cited NJOY DAILY device’s capacity, 7.2 times the capacity of a Vuse Alto pod and 18.6 times the capacity of a JUUL pod.

These comparisons illustrate differences in product format. They should not be interpreted as direct comparisons of total nicotine exposure, safety or real-world lifespan.

CrossBar also differs visually from many traditional closed-system products, using a flatter disposable-device design rather than the smaller form factors associated with earlier generations of e-cigarettes.

The directory’s composition is noteworthy for another reason: several popular disposable brands were absent from the October 18 list. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office said that manufacturer certification applications were still under review and that the directory would be updated as products received approval.

CrossBar 20K Appears in Multiple State Records

Pennsylvania is not the only state where CrossBar 20K has appeared in publicly available product records.

According to 2Firsts’ review, the four variants were listed in records for Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Nebraska, Tennessee and Mississippi. The associated applicant names included Blue Nine LLC and VR Products I LLC.

The four variants also used matching Universal Product Codes (UPCs) across multiple state records, providing a way to identify the same products in different listings.

North Carolina records reportedly showed that Blue Nine’s four CrossBar variants were added to the state list on May 1, 2025. Nebraska records also identified the products’ 13 mL capacity.

Historical records in Louisiana and Arkansas referenced earlier CrossBar products with a much smaller 1.3 mL capacity. Wisconsin had previously listed four newer variants in May 2025, although those records were removed in February 2026, according to the report.

These records show that CrossBar products have appeared in different state-level regulatory systems over time. They do not, by themselves, establish that every listing remains active or that the products have received FDA marketing authorization.

State directories operate under their own legal requirements, and a product’s eligibility for inclusion may depend on the specific conditions of the relevant law.

From 1.3 mL to 13 mL: The Regulatory Question Behind CrossBar

One of the central questions concerns the relationship between earlier CrossBar products and the newer CrossBar 20K range.

Historical records cited by 2Firsts reference CrossBar Tobacco and Menthol products with a 1.3 mL capacity. Those records identified Romo LLC and included a September 9, 2020 application date, with the relevant status described as under review.

The newer CrossBar 20K products have a reported capacity of 13 mL—ten times the earlier figure—and use a different physical format. Their state directory records also identify Blue Nine LLC and VR Products I LLC.

These differences raise questions about the scope of the original applications, subsequent product changes and the relationships between the companies named in the records.

At present, the available public information does not confirm that the earlier 1.3 mL products and the newer 13 mL variants are covered by the same PMTA. Nor does it establish that the relevant application rights were transferred from Romo LLC to Blue Nine LLC.

That uncertainty is important. A historical application record should not automatically be treated as proof that a substantially different product is eligible for sale.

What a PMTA Amendment Can—and Cannot—Establish

A Premarket Tobacco Product Application is the process through which the US Food and Drug Administration evaluates a new tobacco product before it can legally be marketed under the applicable federal framework.

Applicants must provide information about product ingredients, design, manufacturing, labeling and relevant health-risk investigations, among other requirements. The FDA reviews the submission to determine whether the product meets the statutory standard for marketing authorization.

The agency permits applicants to submit amendments while an application is under review. These amendments can provide additional information, clarify earlier submissions or respond to questions raised during the review process.

However, the existence of an amendment process does not mean that every product change can be added to an existing application without further review. Whether a change can be handled within an application depends on the original submission, the nature of the modification and the applicable FDA requirements.

Ownership changes also involve formal procedures. If a company transfers rights associated with an application, the relevant documentation and regulatory requirements must be addressed.

In the CrossBar case, industry compliance expert Mr. K suggested that product amendments or a change in application ownership could be possible explanations for the differences between the earlier and newer records.

Those possibilities remain explanations rather than confirmed events. The public information cited in the report does not establish that CrossBar 20K received coverage through an amendment to the earlier application or that the relevant application rights were transferred between the companies.

The distinction between a possible regulatory route and a documented regulatory outcome is essential when assessing the products’ status.

Manufacturers also need to follow developments in the FDA’s wider regulatory framework, including the requirements discussed in our report on FDA tobacco registration and product-listing compliance.

Pennsylvania’s Directory Does Not Replace FDA Authorization

Pennsylvania’s ENDS directory is designed to identify products that meet the state’s requirements for sale. Its framework includes specific eligibility and certification conditions, including provisions relevant to certain products with pending federal applications.

The state directory therefore serves a different purpose from the FDA’s federal marketing authorization process.

For businesses, appearing in a state directory can have a direct impact on distribution and retail access. For regulators, the listing system provides a mechanism for determining which products meet the state’s requirements.

However, the presence of a product in a state directory should not be interpreted as a blanket FDA approval. The legal basis for each listing depends on the applicable rules and the documentation submitted.

For CrossBar 20K, the specific certification route used for the Pennsylvania entries has not been fully established in the publicly available records cited by 2Firsts.

This leaves an important question for further reporting: how do the newer product specifications and applicant identities relate to the earlier CrossBar records, and what documentation supports their current eligibility?

The PACHA Transaction Shows the Commercial Value of Regulatory Assets

A separate transaction involving Charlie’s Holdings and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company offers a useful comparison for understanding the commercial significance of historical regulatory applications.

In April 2025, R.J. Reynolds, part of British American Tobacco’s US business, entered into an asset purchase agreement with Charlie’s Holdings involving PACHA synthetic nicotine products and related assets.

The initial transaction covered 12 products for $5 million. Subsequent agreements added three products for $1.5 million and another product for $1 million. Together, the three stages involved 16 products and a fixed cash consideration of $7.5 million.

The original agreement also included a potential additional payment tied to future commercial performance. That contingent amount was separate from the fixed consideration.

The transaction documentation filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission included regulatory application-related rights among the assets and arrangements covered by the deal.

This provides a documented example of how product portfolios and related regulatory assets can form part of a commercial transaction.

It does not establish that CrossBar underwent a similar transfer. Rather, it illustrates why the ownership and scope of historical applications can matter to companies operating in a tightly regulated market.

Charlie’s Holdings later reported that it continued to hold hundreds of products with submitted PMTAs after the PACHA transaction. The company has discussed further work on those applications and potential commercial partnerships.

The PACHA transaction and the CrossBar situation should therefore be treated separately: one involved a documented asset purchase, while the other still raises unanswered questions about the relationship between older applications and newer product records.

Why the CrossBar Case Matters to the US Vaping Market

The CrossBar 20K listing highlights several issues affecting the US e-cigarette industry.

First, state-level product directories can influence which products remain available through retail channels. Companies that satisfy the applicable requirements may have a different market position from businesses whose products are still awaiting review.

Second, historical PMTA records can become important when a product or business changes. Regulators and market participants need to distinguish between an application for a specific product and a later product that may differ in capacity, design or other characteristics.

Third, corporate ownership and application transfers require careful documentation. A change in a company name or applicant listed in state records does not, on its own, prove that regulatory rights were transferred correctly.

Finally, the case demonstrates why product listing status, FDA authorization and commercial availability should not be treated as interchangeable terms.

As more US states develop or enforce their own product-directory rules, businesses will need to understand both federal requirements and the separate conditions imposed by each state.

What to Watch Next

The next important developments will be any additional public records clarifying the regulatory basis for CrossBar 20K’s state listings.

Relevant information could include confirmation of the products’ application status, documentation of any ownership transfer, or further details about how the newer specifications relate to the earlier 1.3 mL products.

Updates to Pennsylvania’s directory and records from other states may also help clarify the products’ status over time.

Until such evidence becomes available, the relationship between the earlier CrossBar products and the CrossBar 20K range remains unresolved.

Bottom line: CrossBar 20K stands out in Pennsylvania’s 2026 ENDS directory because of its reported 13 mL capacity and claimed 20,000-puff specification. Yet the more consequential question is regulatory: publicly available records have not confirmed whether the newer products are covered by the historical CrossBar PMTA or whether an application transfer took place. The distinction matters as state directories increasingly shape access to the US vaping market.

The post CrossBar 20K Draws Attention in Pennsylvania’s Vape Directory as PMTA Questions Remain appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on October 14 that Pennsylvania’s Act 57 of 2025 can restrict the sale of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products that do not appear on the state’s approved product directory. The decision rejected requests for summary judgment from manufacturers, distributors and retailers challenging the law.

In MMA Group 1 Inc. v. Sunday, Jr., U.S. District Judge Julia K. Munley concluded that the law regulates the sale and distribution of vaping products, an area in which federal law preserves certain state regulatory powers. Although Pennsylvania uses information related to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) premarket review process to determine directory eligibility, the court found that this does not make the state law impermissible under federal law.

The ruling supported Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday and Department of Revenue Secretary Patrick Browne. It resolved the case at the district court level, although further appellate review may still be possible.

Five days after the decision, Pennsylvania began enforcing the restrictions against covered vaping products that are not listed in the state directory.

$2 Million in Vape Inventory at Risk in Industry Lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2026, by companies involved in vaping product manufacturing, wholesale distribution and retail sales. The plaintiffs included Nova Distro Inc., distributor 101 Distributors LLC, and businesses operating Tobacco Hut and Tobacco Lux stores in Pennsylvania.

Court records cited in the ruling described the potential commercial impact of the law on the retail network. Tobacco Hut reportedly employed approximately 150 to 180 full-time workers, with vaping products accounting for about 60% of its profits. As of June 2, 2026, the business held approximately $2 million in inventory that could potentially be subject to seizure under Act 57.

The stores reportedly sold between 200 and 300 types of nicotine vaping products that had not received FDA marketing authorization.

Nova Distro manufactured and distributed vaping products to Tobacco Hut stores. According to testimony cited by the court, the companies had family-business connections involving part of the retail operation. Nova Distro also produced the nicotine vape brand Hut Bar, which had reportedly been sold at Tobacco Hut locations for approximately two to three years without FDA marketing authorization.

The other plaintiff, 101 Distributors, supplied vaping products to Tobacco Hut and other convenience stores and tobacco retailers. Court materials indicated that vaping products accounted for around 40% of the distributor’s profits. The company estimated that selling its existing vape inventory at its normal pace could take between eight months and one year.

The plaintiffs argued that restrictions on unlisted products, together with potential seizures, could significantly disrupt their businesses. They warned of possible store closures and job losses.

These inventory values, profit estimates and employment figures came from the litigation record. They should not be interpreted as final findings of regulatory violations or confirmed economic losses.

Why the Federal Court Rejected the Preemption Challenge

The central legal question was whether Pennsylvania could use FDA marketing authorization and premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) status as criteria for its own vaping product directory.

The plaintiffs argued that Act 57 effectively added requirements connected to the FDA’s federal premarket review system. They maintained that the state restrictions were therefore preempted by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Judge Munley reached a different conclusion. The court found that federal tobacco law preserves state authority over certain aspects of tobacco product sales and distribution, including related possession and reporting requirements.

Under the court’s interpretation, Act 57 does not replace the FDA’s federal review process. Instead, it uses information about federal authorization or application status as part of the eligibility criteria for sales within Pennsylvania.

The court therefore rejected the argument that the state’s directory requirements were barred by federal law. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that Pennsylvania was impermissibly attempting to enforce federal tobacco law on the federal government’s behalf.

The decision establishes a legal basis for Pennsylvania to enforce the challenged restrictions at the district court level. It does not mean that every aspect of state vaping regulation is automatically immune from future legal challenges.

For background on the federal review process, read our guide to FDA marketing authorization and PMTA requirements for vaping products.

Pennsylvania Directory Included 163 Product Listings Before Enforcement

Pennsylvania enacted Act 57 on December 22, 2025. The law established an electronic nicotine delivery system product directory administered by the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Manufacturers must provide documentation meeting the state’s requirements, including information concerning FDA marketing authorization or qualifying PMTA status, before covered products can be included in the directory.

The Attorney General’s Office announced on October 8 that enforcement could begin on October 19. Products covered by the law that are not included in the directory may face sales restrictions, seizure, financial penalties and consequences involving business licenses.

According to a directory analysis previously reported by 2Firsts, Pennsylvania had 163 product records listed as of October 18. The records represented seven manufacturers and included products associated with brands such as Vuse, JUUL, NJOY, Logic and Naked 100.

Geek Bar, RAZ, Lost Mary and Elf Bar did not appear in the directory at that time. A further 22 manufacturer certifications were reportedly still under review.

Companies associated with British American Tobacco, Altria Group, Japan Tobacco and JUUL accounted for 112 of the 163 product records, or approximately 68.7%.

A listing in Pennsylvania’s directory indicates that a product meets the state’s applicable eligibility requirements. It does not, by itself, establish that every listed product has received FDA marketing authorization.

The directory’s composition is therefore an important distinction for manufacturers and retailers assessing which products can legally be sold under Pennsylvania’s system.

Other States Face Similar Legal Challenges Over Vape Directories

Pennsylvania is part of a wider national debate over state-level vaping product directories.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in September 2026 reported that, by June of that year, 16 U.S. states had enacted laws establishing public vaping product directories or registration systems. Implementation dates across those states ranged from 2022 to 2027.

Several federal appellate courts also considered similar disputes during 2026, with rulings supporting state authority to impose certain sales restrictions at the preliminary-injunction stage.

On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction in Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc. v. Casey. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on their federal preemption argument to justify the requested relief.

On July 30, the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court decision refusing to suspend North Carolina’s directory system in Vapor Technology Association v. Wooten.

On the same day, the Eighth Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction that had blocked implementation of Iowa’s directory system in Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc. v. Mosiman. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had not established a sufficient likelihood of success on their preemption claim.

These cases primarily concerned preliminary injunctions, which determine whether a challenged policy should be temporarily blocked while litigation proceeds. Pennsylvania’s October 14 ruling went further at the district court level by resolving the parties’ summary judgment requests on the core dispute.

State implementation nevertheless remains uneven. On October 15, Iowa’s Department of Revenue reportedly announced another delay in publishing its vaping product directory and beginning penalties, citing the need to collect additional manufacturer information and review product eligibility.

The different timelines illustrate that a favorable court ruling does not necessarily mean every state will implement its directory or enforcement program at the same pace.

For more coverage of changing U.S. vaping rules, explore our reporting on U.S. vape regulations and compliance requirements.

Research Questions Whether Vape Directories Reduce Unlisted Product Sales

The legal debate is unfolding alongside questions about how effectively product directories change the retail market.

A study published in JAMA Network Open on September 15, 2026, examined vaping product sales in Alabama, Oklahoma and Louisiana, three states that adopted directory systems relatively early.

Researchers analyzed retail scanner data covering January 2021 through April 2025 and compared trends with states that had not adopted similar systems.

The study found no statistically significant change in overall vaping nicotine sales or product variety following directory publication in Alabama and Oklahoma. Louisiana experienced an initial decline in sales after implementation, followed by a rebound. The number of different products sold in the state also declined during the study period.

The researchers estimated that, as of April 2025, products not listed in the relevant directories accounted for the following shares of tracked e-cigarette nicotine sales:

The researchers retrospectively classified products sold in April 2025 using state directories obtained in July 2026. The data covered tracked retail channels and did not represent every vape specialty shop or online sales channel.

Louisiana also conducted enforcement operations. In June 2025, the state’s tax department reportedly announced that a four-week joint operation had seized approximately 34,000 vaping-related items, including vape pens, cartridges and e-liquid.

The study’s findings suggest that publishing a directory does not necessarily eliminate sales of products that are absent from it. However, the results should be interpreted in light of differences among state laws, enforcement activity and the retail channels covered by the data.

The researchers also noted that publicly available enforcement information remains limited. Further analysis using administrative enforcement records and additional sales data will be needed to assess the relationship between directory policies and actual market changes.

What Pennsylvania’s Decision Means for Vape Businesses

Pennsylvania’s ruling removes a significant legal obstacle to enforcement of Act 57, but the practical effects will depend on how the state applies the law and how manufacturers and retailers respond.

For manufacturers, the directory creates a need to verify eligibility and documentation before distributing products into Pennsylvania. Wholesalers must consider whether their inventories contain products that fall within the law’s restrictions. Retailers, meanwhile, face the risk of carrying products that cannot legally be sold under the state’s requirements.

The court decision also reinforces the importance of distinguishing between state directory eligibility and FDA marketing authorization. The two are related under Pennsylvania’s system, but they are not interchangeable regulatory concepts.

The next indicators to watch include product removals, inspections, seizures, penalties, further litigation and changes in retail availability. Those developments will help show how the directory operates in practice and whether its effects resemble the outcomes observed in other states.

For now, Pennsylvania has moved from legal uncertainty to active enforcement. The October 14 ruling supports the state’s authority to restrict covered products absent from its directory, while the longer-term effects on businesses, employment and the availability of vaping products remain to be seen.

The post Pennsylvania Court Upholds E-Cigarette Product Directory Law as Enforcement Begins appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The decision took effect on October 19, 2026, following Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court declining to hear an appeal in a case involving the delivery of tobacco and nicotine products. The ruling leaves an earlier court decision in place, under which location-based BankID verification was not considered sufficient to verify the age of the actual recipient.

The development highlights a growing compliance challenge for online nicotine retailers: verifying the age of the person placing an order may not be enough when someone else could collect the package.

Haypp Ends Snusnetto Sales, Affecting Around 500 Customers

Haypp subsidiary Snusbolaget Norden AB has discontinued tobacco and nicotine product sales through Snusnetto following the court decision. The company said the platform had approximately 500 active customers and that the closure was not expected to have a material effect on Haypp Group’s financial results.

The company also informed the relevant licensing authority in Stockholm about the change.

Although Snusnetto is a relatively small part of the group’s business, the decision has wider implications for how nicotine products are sold and delivered online in Sweden. Retailers that use parcel lockers may need to reassess their age-verification procedures to ensure they meet the legal requirements.

Haypp operates 11 e-commerce brands across several markets in Europe, the United States, and Saudi Arabia, serving more than 1.1 million consumers, according to the company’s corporate information.

Why BankID and Location Verification Were Not Enough

The dispute centered on whether the existing process could reliably establish that the person collecting a tobacco or nicotine shipment was legally old enough to receive it.

BankID is used in Sweden for digital identity verification. Combined with location data, it can help establish that an authenticated user is near a parcel locker. However, the court proceedings addressed a separate question: whether those checks prove that the same verified individual actually opens the locker and takes possession of the goods.

The court ruling left in place the conclusion that this combination did not provide sufficient assurance of the recipient’s age at collection.

This distinction matters for online retailers because an order may be placed by one person but collected by another. A verification system that only checks the buyer’s identity may not adequately address that risk.

The case therefore places greater emphasis on age verification at the point of delivery, particularly when unattended parcel lockers are used.

Haypp Introduces a New Parcel-Locker Age Verification System

In response, Haypp is rolling out a new age-verification solution across its other Swedish e-commerce platforms. The company said the technology had been developed over approximately six months and is designed to verify the age of the individual who opens the parcel locker and collects the shipment.

The rollout began immediately after the October 19 announcement, with full implementation across the affected sites expected during October 2026.

Haypp has not disclosed the complete technical design of the new system. It has also not confirmed which technology partners, if any, are directly involved in the deployment.

The company expects the change to have a limited practical effect on most consumers, although customers who receive tobacco or nicotine products through parcel lockers may need to follow revised collection procedures.

Orders delivered through traditional staffed collection points are not affected by this specific change, because staff can check the recipient’s age when handing over a parcel.

Age Verification Is Becoming a Broader Industry Compliance Issue

The Swedish case reflects a wider shift in nicotine-product regulation. Age checks are increasingly being considered across multiple stages of the sales process, including online purchasing, retail transactions, delivery, and access to electronic devices.

In the United States, Reynolds American has reported incorporating age-verification requirements into a large network of contracted retail outlets. Separately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has discussed device-access restrictions in decisions and guidance relating to certain electronic nicotine delivery systems.

These approaches differ from Sweden’s parcel-locker issue, but they illustrate a common regulatory concern: age controls need to work at the point where a product is actually purchased, received, or used.

For nicotine pouches and traditional snus, which do not require an electronic device, online retail and delivery procedures remain important parts of the verification process.

Haypp’s legal and external affairs representative has also predicted that electronic age verification could become more widely used for tobacco and nicotine purchases in Sweden over the next two to three years. That timeline is the company’s forecast, not a formal government implementation deadline.

Similar compliance challenges are emerging in other markets, as explained in our report on the UK’s stricter e-cigarette retail rules and age-verification requirements.

What the Ruling Means for Online Nicotine Retailers

The immediate impact is most relevant to businesses that sell tobacco or nicotine products through unattended parcel lockers.

Retailers may need to review whether their systems verify the actual recipient rather than relying exclusively on the identity of the person who placed the order. They should also examine how verification records are maintained and whether their delivery partners can support compliant collection procedures.

The exact legal obligations for individual businesses depend on the applicable Swedish rules and how regulators interpret and enforce them. Companies should therefore seek current legal guidance rather than assume that the same technical solution will be suitable for every delivery model.

For e-commerce operators, the case demonstrates that age verification is not simply a checkout feature. It can affect fulfilment systems, delivery partnerships, customer experience, and the continued operation of an online sales channel.

Age verification is also being incorporated into product technology, as discussed in our report on Vuse Pro’s age-verification features and app-based access controls.

Conclusion

Haypp Group’s decision to close Snusnetto’s tobacco and nicotine sales after Sweden’s latest age-verification ruling shows how delivery procedures can directly affect online nicotine businesses.

The company is introducing new technology to verify the age of the person who physically collects a parcel from a locker, while other retailers may also need to assess whether their existing systems meet the legal standard.

As regulators place greater emphasis on verification throughout the purchasing and delivery process, reliable age checks are becoming an increasingly important part of compliance for online tobacco and nicotine retailers.

The post Haypp Closes Snusnetto in Sweden After Age Verification Ruling on Nicotine Deliveries appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The developments could affect manufacturers and importers that must manage product marking, tax compliance, and preparations for the transition to digital tracking.

According to a report published by 2Firsts on October 21, 2026, the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 1259 on October 15, while the Verkhovna Rada passed Bill No. 15532 on October 13. As of October 21, the bill on delaying the electronic system had been sent to the president for signature.

Ukraine Increases Paper Excise Stamp Fees by 30.5%

Under Resolution No. 1259, the production fee for paper excise stamps covering tobacco products and e-cigarette liquids rises from UAH 0.1643 to UAH 0.2144 per stamp. This represents an increase of approximately 30.5%.

The fee for alcohol excise stamps is also increasing, from UAH 0.3537 to UAH 0.46044 per stamp, a rise of approximately 30.2%.

The revised charges apply to businesses that need to purchase the relevant stamps for product marking. Although the additional cost per stamp is small, the impact can become significant for companies ordering large volumes.

Higher Compliance Costs for Tobacco Manufacturers and Importers

The increase adds UAH 0.0501 to the cost of each tobacco-related excise stamp.

Based on the figures reported by 2Firsts, a manufacturer purchasing 100 million stamps annually would incur approximately UAH 5.01 million in additional costs. A company purchasing 10 million stamps would face an estimated increase of UAH 501,000.

The final financial impact will depend on each company’s annual purchasing volume and product mix. Manufacturers and importers of e-cigarette liquids are also affected by the revised stamp fee.

The change highlights how product-marking requirements can influence operating expenses, particularly for businesses handling high volumes of regulated goods.

Ukraine Plans to Delay Electronic Excise and Traceability System Until July 2027

Alongside the higher paper stamp fees, Ukraine is moving toward a revised timetable for its electronic excise and product-tracking system.

The system was originally scheduled for full implementation on November 1, 2026. Under Bill No. 15532, the proposed new deadline is July 1, 2027, extending the preparation period by eight months.

The proposed delay covers alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and liquids used in electronic cigarettes.

Ukrainian lawmakers said additional time is needed for system testing, configuration, and integration before the platform can be fully deployed. The extension is intended to give the relevant systems and participating businesses more time to prepare.

However, the status of the bill is important: as of October 21, 2026, it had been sent to the president for signature. The proposed July 2027 deadline should therefore be distinguished from a fully effective legal change unless subsequent official records confirm enactment.

What Ukraine’s Electronic Excise System Is Designed to Do

Ukraine’s electronic excise initiative, commonly referred to as eExcise, is intended to digitize product identification and improve the tracking of regulated goods throughout the supply chain.

The system is designed to support functions such as:

• Generating electronic excise stamps.
• Identifying and marking regulated products.
• Recording product movement and circulation information.
• Exchanging relevant data between market participants and regulatory authorities.

The transition is intended to modernize the way excise-marked products are monitored. However, implementation requires technical integration and coordination among government agencies, manufacturers, importers, and other businesses involved in distribution.

The proposed extension would provide more time to complete these preparations before the full system becomes operational.

What the Changes Mean for the Tobacco and Vaping Industry

The two developments create different compliance considerations for businesses operating in Ukraine.

First, the higher paper excise stamp fee increases the direct cost of product marking. Companies with large annual purchasing volumes may need to revise compliance budgets and account for the additional expense.

Second, the proposed extension of the electronic tracking deadline gives businesses more time to prepare for digital identification and reporting requirements. Companies should nevertheless continue monitoring implementation guidance and preparing for the transition rather than assuming that the delay removes their future obligations.

The final timing of the electronic system will depend on the bill’s legal status and any subsequent official implementation announcements.

For another example of how tax policy affects the international vaping supply chain, read our report on China’s planned end to more vape export tax rebates in 2027.

Ukraine’s tobacco and e-cigarette regulatory framework is undergoing two changes: paper excise stamp fees are rising by around 30.5%, while the planned rollout of the electronic excise and traceability system is proposed to move from November 2026 to July 2027.

For manufacturers and importers, the immediate issue is the higher cost of paper stamps. The longer-term priority is preparing for digital product marking and traceability while following the official legislative process.

Businesses should consult Ukraine’s government and parliamentary publications for the latest legal requirements and implementation dates.

For broader context on changing nicotine-product rules, see our coverage of the EU’s evolving TPD3 regulatory framework.

The post Ukraine Raises Tobacco and E-Cigarette Excise Stamp Fees by 30.5%, Delays Digital Tracking Rollout appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The limited editions feature autumn-themed packaging and come in packs of 20 sticks. Prices range from ¥570 to ¥620, depending on the brand. According to JT, all three products are compatible with its Ploom devices and are available in limited quantities through the official CLUB JT online store.

The launch expands JT’s seasonal product lineup without introducing a new device. Instead, the company is using three established tobacco brands to offer different flavor profiles and price points within its existing heated tobacco portfolio.

Three Ploom Autumn Editions Cover Different Price Points

The new lineup consists of EVO Autumn Premium Regular, MEVIUS Autumn Premium Regular, and CAMEL Autumn Premium Regular. All three are positioned as regular tobacco varieties, but JT describes their flavor characteristics differently.

The descriptions above reflect JT’s published product positioning rather than independent sensory testing. The company has not disclosed specific changes to the tobacco blend or detailed formulation for these seasonal editions.

The three products share the same autumn-themed concept but occupy different price points. EVO sits at the top of the range, followed by MEVIUS and CAMEL.

EVO Autumn Premium Regular: Rich Tobacco Notes

The EVO Autumn Premium Regular is priced at ¥620 per pack. JT describes its flavor profile as rich, with tobacco sweetness and roasted aromas contributing to the aftertaste.

Its price matches the revised standard price for EVO tobacco sticks introduced earlier in October. The autumn edition therefore joins the existing EVO lineup at the same price point rather than establishing a separate premium price above the brand’s updated pricing.

Each pack contains 20 sticks, and the product is being sold as a limited seasonal release.

MEVIUS Autumn Premium Regular: A Milder Profile

The MEVIUS Autumn Premium Regular costs ¥590 per 20-stick pack. JT positions this version around a softer and more balanced tobacco flavor, with an emphasis on a lighter smoking sensation and tobacco aroma.

The product gives MEVIUS a place in the autumn-limited lineup between EVO and CAMEL in terms of price. Like the other two editions, it uses seasonal packaging and is intended for compatible Ploom heated tobacco devices.

JT has not published additional details about the tobacco blend or confirmed whether the seasonal version differs from other MEVIUS regular varieties in its underlying formulation.

CAMEL Autumn Premium Regular: Roasted Aroma

The CAMEL Autumn Premium Regular is the least expensive of the three products, with a tax-inclusive price of ¥570 per pack.

JT describes it as having a roasted aroma and a substantial tobacco character. The company also presents the flavor as layered, distinguishing it from the milder profile attributed to MEVIUS and the richer sweetness associated with EVO.

The product is sold in the same 20-stick format as the other autumn editions. Its lower price gives the CAMEL version the lowest entry point among the three limited releases.

Compatible With Ploom Devices

JT says all three autumn-limited tobacco sticks can be used with its Ploom devices, including Ploom AURA and Ploom CUBE.

The company has not announced a new heated tobacco device alongside these products. The launch instead focuses on tobacco stick varieties, seasonal packaging, and brand-specific flavor positioning within the existing Ploom ecosystem.

Consumers should check the product packaging and official instructions for device compatibility before use.

Limited Sales Through the CLUB JT Online Store

The three products went on sale at 10 a.m. Japan time on October 16, 2026, through the official CLUB JT online store. JT describes the releases as quantity-limited products that will no longer be available once stocks are exhausted.

The announced distribution plan focuses on the online store. JT did not announce nationwide convenience-store or other physical retail distribution for these three autumn editions in the launch information.

The company has also not disclosed the production volume, a fixed end date for sales, or sales targets for the limited products. Availability may therefore depend on remaining stock.

EVO Pricing Changes Provide Additional Market Context

The autumn release follows a broader price adjustment for EVO tobacco sticks in Japan.

According to the information reported alongside the launch, JT’s EVO price revision took effect on October 1, 2026, following changes associated with Japan’s heated tobacco tax system. Several EVO products previously priced at ¥580 increased to ¥620 per pack, while EVO Cacao Mint Crystal rose from ¥550 to ¥620.

The new EVO Autumn Premium Regular is also priced at ¥620, aligning it with the revised price for the EVO range.

JT also expanded the distribution of EVO Cacao Mint Crystal 20-stick packs to convenience stores and tobacco retailers nationwide from October 6. A limited 22-stick version priced at ¥620 was introduced at the same time.

The autumn editions follow a different sales approach: all three are limited to 20 sticks per pack and are being sold through CLUB JT’s online store rather than through the wider retail distribution announced for EVO Cacao Mint Crystal.

What the Autumn Launch Means for JT’s Ploom Portfolio

The three-product launch shows how JT is using its established EVO, MEVIUS, and CAMEL brands to differentiate its Ploom tobacco stick lineup without changing the hardware.

The editions cover three price points, from ¥570 for CAMEL to ¥620 for EVO. JT also gives each product a distinct flavor description, ranging from a milder and balanced profile to richer tobacco notes and roasted aromas.

The limited online sales model differs from the wider retail distribution used for selected EVO products earlier in October. However, JT has not disclosed whether these autumn editions will later reach physical stores or whether similar seasonal products are planned.

For now, the key details are the October 16 launch date, 20-stick packs, compatibility with Ploom devices, and limited availability through CLUB JT. Any future expansion in distribution will depend on further announcements from the company.

The post JT Launches Three Limited-Edition Ploom Tobacco Sticks in Japan for Autumn 2026 appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

As of October 18, the state’s published directory contained 163 product listings from seven manufacturers. Brands appearing on the list included Vuse, JUUL, NJOY, Logic, and Naked 100. Several widely recognized disposable vape brands, including Geek Bar, RAZ, Lost Mary, and Elf Bar, were not listed in the directory at that time.

The development highlights how state-level product approval requirements can affect the availability of vaping products even when those products are familiar to consumers. The directory may also change as additional manufacturer certifications are reviewed and approved.

Pennsylvania’s New Vape Sales Rules Begin Enforcement

The requirements stem from Pennsylvania Act 57 of 2025, signed into law on December 22, 2025. The law established a state directory administered by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, identifying electronic nicotine delivery system products eligible for retail sale under the state’s requirements.

Beginning October 19, 2026, applicable products that do not appear on the directory may no longer be sold, offered for sale, or retained as retail inventory in Pennsylvania. The Attorney General’s Office has announced that it can conduct targeted enforcement and impose penalties for violations.

The rules are particularly important for retailers carrying large numbers of disposable vapes, replacement pods, bottled e-liquids, and device kits. Businesses need to check the actual product listing rather than assuming that an entire brand is approved because one of its products appears on the state’s directory.

The directory is a state-level sales compliance system. Inclusion should not be interpreted as a general endorsement of a product, and absence from the list on a particular date does not necessarily mean a manufacturer has never submitted an application.

Pennsylvania’s new requirements are part of a wider shift in U.S. vape regulation, making it important for retailers to follow both federal requirements and state-specific sales rules.

Seven Manufacturers Account for 163 Listed Products

The directory published on October 18 contained products from seven manufacturers. Vuse had the largest number of listings, followed by JUUL and Naked 100.

These figures reflect the published directory as reported on October 18, rather than a permanent count. The state may update the list as certifications are approved.

Vuse, which is associated with R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, accounted for 52 listings. JUUL and Naked 100 each had 40. Together, the three brands represented most of the entries in the directory.

Logic, NJOY, CrossBar, and e Cig 4 Inmate accounted for the remaining listings. Imperial Brands’ blu and myblu products did not appear in the published directory at that time.

Geek Bar, RAZ, Lost Mary and Elf Bar Missing From the Published List

One of the most commercially significant aspects of the directory was the absence of several popular vape brands. A review of the published list before enforcement found no listings for Geek Bar, RAZ, Lost Mary, Elf Bar, Breeze Smoke, Flum, Hyde, and Off-Stamp.

For retailers, the practical issue is product-level compliance. A store cannot assume that an unlisted device is eligible for sale simply because its manufacturer or another product from the same brand is familiar in the market.

The same principle applies to individual variants. A listed product does not automatically make every flavor, device, nicotine strength, or package configuration from the same brand eligible for sale.

The directory should therefore be checked against the precise product name and relevant listing details before stock is offered to customers. Businesses should also retain accurate purchasing and inventory records to support compliance.

Product Categories Include Pods, E-Liquids and Disposable Vapes

The 163 directory entries covered several types of products, not just disposable devices.

Replacement pods and cartridges made up the largest category, while disposable vapes represented 15 entries. Bottled e-liquid accounted for 40 listings.

The published list also did not show an approved open-system refillable device alongside the listed bottled e-liquids. Separately, Boulder and Rock products appeared on a publicly disclosed pending list but were not included in the formal directory as of October 18.

This distinction matters because the presence of a bottled e-liquid in a directory does not, by itself, establish that a compatible refillable device is also listed.

Ten Zero-Nicotine E-Liquid Listings Also Appear

The directory included 10 Naked 100 e-liquid listings labeled as containing 0mg nicotine. The reported 40 Naked 100 entries covered 10 product lines, with four listed nicotine strengths per line: 0mg, 3mg, 6mg, and 12mg.

Pennsylvania’s certification guidance also addresses certain non-nicotine products that use the same brand name as nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes. In the circumstances described by the Attorney General, manufacturers must certify the absence of nicotine and provide appropriate test results from a certified U.S. laboratory.

This means that a product labeled nicotine-free should not automatically be assumed to fall outside the state’s requirements. Its brand relationship and the applicable certification rules can also matter.

For manufacturers, the distinction creates an additional compliance consideration when a brand sells both nicotine-containing and nicotine-free products.

Twenty-Two Manufacturer Certifications Remain Under Review

As of the reported October 18 update, the Attorney General’s Office had 22 manufacturer certifications under review. The agency has stated that the directory will be updated as products receive approval.

The public pending information included applications associated with companies and brands such as LYCO, OXBAR, Boulder, and Rock. Those names were not included in the formal sales directory at the time covered by the report.

A pending application should not be treated as an approval. Equally, the absence of a company from a publicly disclosed pending list does not necessarily prove that it has never submitted an application, because disclosure of pending information may depend on authorization and the applicable rules.

For brands seeking to maintain access to Pennsylvania retailers, complete documentation and timely certification are therefore important. For retailers, monitoring updates is essential because the list may change after the initial enforcement date.

Manufacturers should also understand the FDA’s premarket tobacco product application process when assessing the requirements for marketing vape products in the United States.

What the Rules Mean for Vape Retailers

Pennsylvania’s directory system adds a further product-level compliance check to the work of operating a vape store. Retailers should verify that the exact products they intend to sell appear on the current official directory and should not rely solely on a distributor’s assurance or an older product catalog.

The Attorney General has said enforcement may involve targeted inspections, with penalties that escalate for repeat violations. Products that do not meet the applicable requirements may face seizure or other legal consequences.

Retailers can reduce uncertainty by reviewing the official directory regularly, checking product names and variants against the published entries, and asking suppliers for documentation where needed. Manufacturers should also follow the state’s certification guidance and keep product information current.

Where to Check Pennsylvania’s Official Vape Directory

The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General maintains the official ENDS directory, certification information, and related guidance.

Retailers and manufacturers should use the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s official ENDS Directory to check current listings and review the rules that apply to their products.

Because the directory can be updated, the October 18 figures in this report should be treated as a snapshot of the list before enforcement began, not a guarantee of the current number of approved products.

Conclusion

Pennsylvania’s October 19 enforcement milestone marks a major change for the state’s vaping retail market. The directory contained 163 listings from seven manufacturers as of October 18, while several familiar disposable vape brands were absent from the published list.

For retailers, the immediate priority is verifying each product against the current directory. For manufacturers, the challenge is completing the certification process and ensuring that product variants meet the applicable requirements. With 22 certifications still under review at the time of the report, the list may continue to evolve.

The central takeaway is straightforward: retail eligibility in Pennsylvania depends on the applicable state requirements and the specific product’s directory status, not brand recognition alone.

The post Pennsylvania Vape Directory Takes Effect: 163 Products Listed as Geek Bar and Lost Mary Face Sales Restrictions appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The new collection explores a spectrum of fruit-led flavours, from juicy peach and watermelon to layered berries, crisp apple soda and refreshing blackcurrant. Each flavour brings its own character while staying true to DOJO’s commitment to True Fresh Flavour.

The five new flavours include:

Watermelon Peach – juicy watermelon balanced with soft, mellow peach.

Mix Berries – a vibrant blend of sweet and tangy berry notes.

Blackcurrant Ice – rich blackcurrant with a cool, refreshing finish.

Blueberry Blackberry – a deep, juicy combination of dark berries.

Apple Soda – crisp apple lifted by a light sparkling sensation.

Inspired by Nature, Made for the Season

At the heart of the new collection is the concept of Inspired from Nature.

Drawing from orchard fruits, dark berries and fresh seasonal produce, the five flavours capture different sides of the changing season—from bright, juicy fruit notes to deeper and cooler profiles as autumn moves toward winter.

Rather than expressing autumn through a single flavour, the collection brings together a broader spectrum of natural inspiration, creating more choice while keeping every taste clear, fresh and easy to recognise.

True Fresh Flavour, Powered by COREX BLAST Technology

Every BLAST X flavour is supported by DOJO’s advanced COREX BLAST technology, engineered to deliver consistent heat distribution and reliable flavour performance throughout the vaping experience.

This helps each flavour retain its distinctive profile, from the crispness of Apple Soda to the depth of Blueberry Blackberry and Blackcurrant Ice.

The result is True Fresh Flavour—clear, vivid taste designed to remain consistent from the first puff to the last.

BLAST X also features SSS Leak-Resistant Tech, helping minimise unwanted leakage and supporting a cleaner, more reliable everyday experience.

Together, COREX BLAST technology and SSS Leak-Resistant Tech provide the technical foundation behind BLAST X: fresh flavour, consistent performance and dependable use.

Experience BLAST X Live Across Germany

The launch of the five new flavours will also extend beyond retail, with DOJO bringing BLAST X directly to adult consumers through four live music events across Germany in October and November.

Visitors will have the opportunity to discover DOJO, experience BLAST X and explore the new flavours in person at:

• Turbinenhalle, Oberhausen BLACKLIST Festival

9–10 October 2026

• Ostermann Arena, Leverkusen Tiakola Tour

13 November 2026

• Ostermann Arena, Leverkusen TURK WAVE

14 November 2026

• Turbinenhalle, Oberhausen OUT4FAME – TAY G Concert

26 November 2026

Turbinenhalle, OberhausenAcross four events and five nights, DOJO will bring together flavour, music and culture, offering adult consumers a chance to experience the brand in a live setting.

The five new BLAST X flavours will begin rolling out across selected retailers in Germany from late October.

Five new flavours. Inspired by nature. True Fresh Flavour.

For more information, please visit DOJO’s official website: https://www.dojovape.com/

DOJO’s Germany website: https://www.dojovape.com/de

The post DOJO Brings Five New BLAST X Flavours to Germany, Inspired by Nature and Made for the Season appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The updated package includes one JUUL2 device, a USB-C charging cable, and four prefilled pods. The previous starter kit came with two pods. The latest revision also introduces a new package design intended to reduce packaging materials.

USB-C Charging Replaces the Dedicated Charging Dock

One of the main changes to the JUUL2 Starter Kit is its charging connection. The updated device uses USB-C, replacing the dedicated USB charging dock supplied with the earlier version.

Juul Labs says the revised device offers longer battery life, although the company has not published the battery capacity, the percentage improvement in runtime, or the time required for a full charge.

The updated kit retains the product’s two-year limited warranty. Existing JUUL2 features, including indicators for battery level and remaining e-liquid, remain part of the system.

Rather than introducing an entirely new device platform, the company has focused on practical hardware changes, a trend also seen in other rechargeable vape devices with updated charging systems.

Four Prefilled Pods Include Tobacco, Menthol and Two Fruit Flavours

The updated starter kit contains four JUUL2 pods in the following flavours:

The packaging lists a nicotine concentration of 18mg/mL.

The previous starter kit included Virginia Tobacco and Crisp Menthol. The revised version retains both established options and adds Mango and Watermelon, doubling the number of included pods from two to four.

Both fruit flavours were already available as separate JUUL2 pod products in the UK. In September 2025, Juul Labs announced four fruit flavours—Mango, Apple, Watermelon and Lychee—with distribution beginning in October that year. Peach was added to the JUUL2 range in January 2026.

The latest starter-kit update therefore brings two existing fruit flavours into the standard package rather than introducing them as new products.

The latest starter-kit update brings two existing fruit flavours into the standard package, reflecting the wider development of flavour ranges in the vaping industry.

The £9.99 Price Remains Unchanged

The recommended retail price for the revised JUUL2 Starter Kit remains £9.99, matching the price of the earlier version despite the increase in included pods.

Juul Labs’ previously published UK pricing listed the standalone JUUL2 device kit at £6.99, a two-pack of replacement pods at £6.99, and a four-pack of replacement pods at £13.99.

The updated £9.99 starter kit combines the device with four pods in one package. However, the recommended retail price does not necessarily reflect the price offered by every retailer, and actual prices may vary by sales channel.

JUUL2 Starter Kit: Previous Version vs. Updated Version

UK Distribution Starts in October 2026

Juul Labs says the updated starter kit will become available from October 2026 through major UK retailers, wholesalers, convenience stores, and the company’s UK website.

JUUL2 began trial sales through the UK website in autumn 2021 before entering physical retail channels in April 2022. The system uses a closed, prefilled-pod design and includes indicators for battery charge and remaining e-liquid.

Since 2025, Juul Labs has expanded the range of fruit flavours available for JUUL2. The new starter kit brings Mango and Watermelon together with the established tobacco and menthol options, while also updating the device’s charging connection and claimed battery performance.

Juul Labs Reports Growth in Non-Tobacco and Non-Menthol Flavours

In related market information, Juul Labs cited Circana data showing that JUUL2 ranked first among menthol-flavour brands and second among tobacco-flavour brands in the UK retail vaping market by sales value. The rankings covered the 12 weeks ending April 5, 2026.

The company also reported that sales of JUUL2 flavours outside the tobacco and menthol categories increased by 22% year over year during the 12 weeks ending May 31, 2026.

Juul Labs further reported an 11% increase in JUUL2 device sales, although the information provided did not specify the measurement period for that figure.

These are company-reported figures based on data attributed to Circana; they should not be interpreted as independently verified market-wide findings without consulting the underlying dataset and methodology.

What the JUUL2 Update Means for the UK Market

The updated JUUL2 Starter Kit is a product and packaging revision rather than a complete redesign of the system. USB-C replaces the earlier dedicated charging dock, battery life is described as improved, and the number of included pods doubles while the recommended price remains at £9.99.

The inclusion of Mango and Watermelon also reflects Juul Labs’ continued expansion of its existing flavour range. Instead of launching new pod technology, the company is adjusting the starter-kit bundle to combine familiar tobacco and menthol options with two established fruit flavours.

The practical significance of the update will depend on real-world battery performance, retail availability, and how consistently the revised kit is priced across UK sales channels. The company has not yet provided detailed battery specifications or quantified the claimed improvement in runtime.

As with other nicotine-containing vaping products, availability and marketing remain subject to applicable UK laws and regulations, including rules governing age restrictions and product compliance.

The post Juul Labs Updates JUUL2 Starter Kit in the UK with USB-C Charging and Four Pods for £9.99 appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The analysis, published by 2Firsts on October 14, 2026, estimates that 54% of current adult vapers are former cigarette smokers, 26% are dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and 20% have never smoked cigarettes regularly. The calculations combine ONS population estimates with reported vaping rates for different smoking-history groups.

The findings offer a more detailed picture of Britain’s vaping market than the overall number of people who vape. They also highlight why smoking history matters when interpreting nicotine-use statistics and evaluating changes in consumer behaviour.

Key Findings From the Latest UK Vaping Data

The 2025 figures show three distinct groups among current adult e-cigarette users in Great Britain.

Source: 2Firsts analysis of ONS 2025 data. Numbers are approximate estimates based on rounded population figures and vaping rates.

The estimates indicate that former smokers represent the largest segment of the current vaping population. However, the three percentages describe the composition of vapers, not the proportion of people in each smoking-history group who use e-cigarettes.

That distinction is important. A group can account for a large share of all vapers because its population is large, even if its individual vaping rate is relatively low.

Former Smokers Account for More Than Half of Current Vapers

Former cigarette smokers are estimated to account for approximately 2.9 million current vapers, or around 54% of the total.

ONS data show that 20.7% of former cigarette smokers used e-cigarettes daily or occasionally in 2025. That figure was broadly unchanged from 20.8% in 2024.

The difference between these two statistics is worth understanding. The 20.7% figure measures vaping prevalence within the former-smoker population, while the 54% figure estimates how much former smokers contribute to the entire vaping population.

The findings establish a substantial overlap between previous cigarette smoking and current vaping. They do not, however, reveal why each individual began vaping or stopped smoking.

Some former smokers may have adopted e-cigarettes while moving away from combustible tobacco. Others may have stopped smoking for different reasons. The survey does not establish that every former smoker in the vaping group quit cigarettes because of e-cigarette use.

For businesses and policymakers, this makes the distinction between smoking history and individual quitting behaviour particularly important when interpreting the figures.

Around One in Four Vapers Still Smokes Cigarettes

The analysis estimates that approximately 26% of current vapers—around 1.42 million adults—continue to smoke cigarettes.

ONS data indicate that 33.8% of current cigarette smokers used e-cigarettes daily or occasionally in 2025, up from 32.8% in 2024. This measure looks at vaping among cigarette smokers rather than the proportion of all vapers who continue to smoke.

The figures show that using an e-cigarette does not necessarily mean a person has stopped smoking cigarettes. Some consumers use both products, a pattern commonly described as dual use.

The frequency of vaping also differs between groups. According to the 2Firsts analysis, around half of current vapers who still smoke cigarettes use e-cigarettes daily. The corresponding estimated share among vapers who have stopped smoking cigarettes is approximately 81%.

These figures describe usage patterns, not the effectiveness of vaping as a smoking-cessation method. The ONS survey does not track each person’s reasons for vaping or establish whether dual users will eventually stop smoking cigarettes.

For public-health discussions, it is therefore important to distinguish exclusive vaping from continued cigarette smoking alongside e-cigarette use.

Around 1.1 Million Vapers Have Never Smoked Regularly

The third group comprises adults who have never smoked cigarettes regularly. The 2Firsts analysis estimates that this group accounts for approximately 20% of current vapers, or around 1.05 million people.

Within this population, ONS data put current vaping prevalence at 2.9% in 2025, compared with 2.7% in 2024. The estimated number of current vapers in this group rose from approximately 940,000 to 1.1 million.

Looking further back, vaping prevalence among people who had never smoked cigarettes increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 2.9% in 2025.

Although the prevalence rate remains comparatively low, the size of the population means that even a small percentage can represent a substantial number of people.

The category also requires careful interpretation. People who have never smoked cigarettes regularly are not necessarily people who have never tried a cigarette, nor does the category establish whether they have used other nicotine products. It should not automatically be treated as a measure of nicotine-naive consumers.

Daily Vaping Patterns Differ by Smoking History

The data reveal differences not only in who vapes, but also in how frequently people report using e-cigarettes.

Among former cigarette smokers who currently vape, approximately 81% are estimated to use e-cigarettes daily. Among current cigarette smokers who also vape, the corresponding figure is about 50%.

This contrast suggests that daily vaping is more common among current vapers who no longer smoke cigarettes than among those who continue to smoke. However, the survey cannot determine why these patterns differ or whether one behaviour causes another.

The figures also should not be interpreted as proof that daily vaping leads to smoking cessation. The ONS data provide a snapshot of reported behaviours, rather than a longitudinal record following the same individuals through their smoking and vaping histories.

For a more complete understanding of consumer behaviour, future research would need to examine how people move between cigarette smoking, dual use, exclusive vaping, and no current use over time.

How Britain’s Vaping Market Has Changed

The latest findings form part of a longer shift in adult nicotine-use patterns across Great Britain.

ONS figures show that current vaping prevalence reached 9.9% in 2025, equivalent to approximately 5.4 million adults aged 16 and over. This was slightly below the 10.0% recorded in 2024.

Daily vaping prevalence fell from 6.7% in 2024 to 6.5% in 2025, while occasional vaping increased slightly from 3.3% to 3.4%.

These movements suggest that overall vaping prevalence remained broadly stable in 2025, following several years of growth. They do not establish that the market has entered a lasting decline or that a specific policy caused the change.

The figures also need to be interpreted alongside the continuing reduction in cigarette smoking. The ONS’s separate Annual Population Survey estimated that 9.8% of UK adults aged 18 and over smoked cigarettes in 2025, down from 10.6% in 2024.

The smoking and vaping statistics come from different surveys with different population coverage and methods. They should not be treated as directly interchangeable measures.

Product innovation is another factor shaping the market; our vape product coverage offers additional context on devices and developments across the consumer electronics sector.

What the Numbers Mean for the UK Vape Industry

For manufacturers, retailers, and distributors, the smoking-history breakdown provides useful context for understanding the range of consumers who use e-cigarettes.

Former smokers form the largest estimated group of current vapers. This makes it important for market analysis to distinguish consumers who have stopped smoking from those who continue to use both products.

At the same time, the estimated 20% share of vapers who have never smoked regularly highlights a separate area of concern for policymakers, particularly when considering youth access, prevention, and responsible marketing.

The data do not establish future sales, market growth, or the effect of specific regulations. Those outcomes depend on a wider set of factors, including product availability, pricing, consumer preferences, and changes in regulation.

For retailers, the figures are best used as a snapshot of the current adult market rather than as a forecast of future demand. For policymakers, they demonstrate why headline vaping prevalence alone does not provide a complete picture of smoking-related behaviour.

For a broader look at changes in the international vaping business, read our report on China’s vape brands expanding into overseas markets.

What the ONS Data Cannot Tell Us

Although the figures offer a useful breakdown, several limitations should be kept in mind.

First, the 54%, 26%, and 20% shares are estimates calculated by 2Firsts using ONS weighted population figures and reported vaping rates. They are not three percentages directly published by the ONS as a table describing the composition of all vapers.

Second, the data do not establish why people vape, whether they intend to quit, or whether e-cigarette use caused them to stop smoking cigarettes.

Third, the survey’s category for people who have never smoked cigarettes regularly should not be interpreted as meaning that every person in that group has never experimented with tobacco or used other nicotine products.

Finally, these figures relate to Great Britain—England, Scotland, and Wales—and should not be presented as a direct breakdown of the entire United Kingdom, because Northern Ireland is not included in the relevant ONS vaping survey.

These distinctions help ensure that the statistics are used accurately in industry analysis and public-health reporting.

Conclusion

The latest ONS figures indicate that Britain’s adult vaping population consists of several distinct groups. Former cigarette smokers account for an estimated 54% of current vapers, people who continue to smoke cigarettes alongside vaping make up around 26%, and those who have never smoked cigarettes regularly account for approximately 20%.

The figures also show differences in daily vaping patterns and a gradual increase in vaping prevalence among people who have never smoked regularly. At the same time, overall vaping prevalence remained broadly stable in 2025.

The latest UK vaping statistics show why the number of people using e-cigarettes is only part of the overall picture. To understand vaping trends more accurately, it is important to consider whether users previously smoked, whether they still smoke cigarettes, and how often they vape. Tracking these factors over time can provide a clearer understanding of changing smoking and vaping habits across Great Britain. However, the findings should be interpreted carefully, as survey data alone cannot establish whether vaping directly causes people to quit smoking or influences their long-term behaviour.

The post UK Vaping Statistics: More Than Half of Vapers Are Former Smokers, ONS Finds appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.

The figures highlight a notable shift in the demographic profile of adult vaping. Although men still had a slightly higher overall vaping rate than women, women aged 25 to 34 reported more e-cigarette use than men of the same age.

The latest demographic findings add further context to the UK’s changing vaping landscape, where new ONS data on vaping prevalence highlight differences across age and sex groups.

Key Findings From the 2025 ONS Vaping Data

• 18.3%: Vaping prevalence among women aged 25–34.

• 14.4%: Vaping prevalence among men in the same age group.

• 16.4%: Overall vaping prevalence among adults aged 25–34.

• 9.6% vs. 10.2%: Overall vaping rates among women and men aged 16 and over, respectively.

• 5.4 million: Estimated number of adults in Great Britain who used e-cigarettes daily or occasionally in 2025.

Women’s Vaping Rate Climbs Over the Past Decade

The ONS figures show a substantial long-term increase in vaping among women aged 25 to 34. In 2014, the estimated rate stood at 5.4%. After fluctuating during the following years, it rose to 10.5% in 2019 before falling to 8.3% in 2020.

The rate subsequently increased, reaching 10.4% in 2023 and 13.7% in 2024. By 2025, it had climbed to 18.3%, an increase of 4.6 percentage points in one year.

This trend does not mean that every year saw consistent growth. The figures instead show a series of fluctuations followed by a pronounced rise in the latest estimate. The ONS also advises care when comparing survey results across years because collection methods and some questions about vaping have changed.

Women Aged 25–34 Report Higher Vaping Rates Than Men

The gender difference varies considerably by age. Across all adults aged 16 and over, 9.6% of women reported current e-cigarette use in 2025, compared with 10.2% of men.

Among adults aged 25 to 34, however, the pattern was reversed: the female rate reached 18.3%, while the male rate was 14.4%. The estimates suggest that vaping behavior differs across demographic groups rather than following one consistent pattern among men and women.

However, these are survey estimates, not exact counts of every person who vapes. The published confidence intervals overlap, so the figures alone do not establish that the underlying vaping rate among women aged 25 to 34 was statistically significantly higher than that among men.

Adults Aged 25–34 Become the UK’s Most Likely Age Group to Vape

The increase among women aged 25 to 34 coincided with a broader shift in the age groups reporting the highest vaping prevalence.

In 2025, 16.4% of adults aged 25 to 34 used e-cigarettes daily or occasionally, compared with 12.9% of those aged 16 to 24. The younger group had held the highest rate from 2021 through 2024, but the latest ONS figures show that the 25-to-34 age group moved into first place.

This change does not prove that younger users have switched to vaping as they grow older. The ONS survey captures population-level patterns at different points in time; it does not follow the same individuals throughout their lives.

These demographic changes are taking place alongside wider policy developments, making it useful to understand the UK’s vaping legislation and regulations for 2026.

Overall Vaping Levels Remain Broadly Stable

Despite the increase among women aged 25 to 34, vaping across Great Britain remained broadly stable overall. The ONS estimated that approximately 5.4 million adults aged 16 and over used e-cigarettes in 2025, representing 9.9% of this population, compared with 10.0% in 2024.

The contrast between the overall rate and the increase in a specific age-and-sex group shows why headline national figures do not tell the whole story. Some demographic groups can experience rising vaping prevalence even when the total adult rate changes very little.

The data do not explain why the rate increased among women aged 25 to 34. They cannot, on their own, establish the influence of product design, flavors, advertising, retail availability or individual motivations.

To understand how regulation is reshaping the products available to adult consumers, read our guide to vaping products that remain available following the UK disposable vape ban.

What the Latest Figures Tell Us

The 2025 ONS data identify women aged 25 to 34 as a particularly notable group in Great Britain’s vaping statistics. Their estimated vaping prevalence reached 18.3%, while adults aged 25 to 34 as a whole recorded the highest rate among the age groups measured.

These findings describe patterns of reported e-cigarette use; they do not establish the reasons behind those patterns or determine the health effects of vaping. They also cover Great Britain—England, Scotland and Wales—not Northern Ireland.

For readers following changes in the UK vaping market, the next step is to monitor whether these demographic differences persist in future ONS releases and to interpret annual changes alongside the survey’s confidence intervals and methodology.

The post UK Vaping Rates Rise Sharply Among Women Aged 25–34, ONS Data Shows appeared first on IGeeKphone China Phone, Tablet PC, VR, RC Drone News, Reviews.